A graduate student complained to me about his advisor. "He treats me and another graduate student totally differently! With her he's hands off, but with me he micromanages!"
A faculty member commented to me, "One of the hardest things I had to learn as a PI was how to recognize that everyone in my lab needs different things from me because of their own strengths and weaknesses, so I need to tailor my style to their needs."
Who's right?
I'm sympathetic to the faculty member, because it's quite true that different trainees have differing strengths. Some are good at experiments but bad at writing; others are good at thinking about science but bad at benchwork; others can't give a presentation worth a damn, regardless how good their data are. So the various lab members really do need different kinds of guidance from their mentor.
However, what I think I hear in the graduate student's complaint is not, in fact, that he is angry about differential treatment. He is angry that he perceives the differential treatment to reveal something about his advisor's opinion: namely, that the advisor respects the other graduate student more (leading to hands-off mentorship), and doesn't trust the male graduate student enough to let him conduct his own experiments without significant input from the PI.
(Of course, it's possible that the female grad student in this example is peeved that the male grad student gets so much attention, while she is neglected. Grass is always greener etc.)
The point is, not only should the PI ideally tailor his or her mentoring strategies to meet the different needs of the trainees, it must be clear that this tailoring is not favoritism, which is the tailoring to the benefit of one trainee over the others.
This is one of the many reasons that management looks hard to me.
15 years ago
21 comments:
Yes, management is hard. Really hard. That is why out in the non-academic world, you usually get training when you become a manager. I've been trained twice ( because I've switched jobs) and there are still plenty of management things that I struggle with.
But... when I was getting ready for the birth of baby #2, I bought Siblings Without Rivalry to read. It is supposed to be THE book to avoid sibling issues. I was struck by how similar the techniques in that book are to the techniques I was taught in management training.
It doesn't just look hard; it *is* hard. Getting good at it is, correspondingly, extremely rewading.
I would be careful as a PI, however, not to be openly bringing up comparisons between students. If the student brings it up, that's one thing...
My advisor was very careful not to discuss how my labmates were doing in the context of my training. In this way, I think everyone is respected. My husband's advisor, on the other hand, would constantly bring up the progress, strengths and weaknesses of her other trainees in her meetings with him- she would do this with all trainees- and it did much, much harm to the group morale.
I agree with CE's point - the PI should be careful not to compare the students. However, if the student wants to know why they are being treated in a certain way, they should figure out a way to ask.
Cloud, that's very funny. I may have to check it out.
CE, I agree that that's important but I don't think it's sufficient. People will still notice differences in treatment even if it's not discussed. So how to either discuss these things so that it's not negative, or to treat people in such a way that the disparities don't seem unfair?
I don't think PIs always base their management style on the student's (or postdoc's) perceived strengths/weaknesses. In my case, my graduate PI would shower attention on those working on his pet project at the time (we called it the "flavor of the month" club). Every few months or so, as one project was nearing fruition (ie. the paper was in submission), PI would start showering attention on his newest obsession. He really did have a one-track mind for projects, which was frustrating since our lab had multiple, diverse projects going on. We (eventually) learned not to take it personally.
So how to either discuss these things so that it's not negative, or to treat people in such a way that the disparities don't seem unfair?
You know, honestly, I don't think the PI should have to explain *how* she is training her trainees to her trainees. Not everything is going to appear completely uniformly or fairly in our profession, and learning this is part of the Ph.D. experience. Call me heartless, but I'd tell the grad student you speak of to 'sack the fuck up'.
CE, gotta disagree with you there. Management problems like this can have the effect of implying that a student is a failure at science, when in reality perhaps the PI thinks nothing of the sort. I'm not saying the PI has to go around explaining every time, "Oh, I'm giving you a lot of input into your experimental paradigm because it's a time-consuming experiment and I want it to go smoothly for you" or whatever, but they are obligated to avoid the appearance of overt favoritism, which is a productivity-killer in any environment.
Jen, yes, that's more of a cyclical thing related to the PI not being able to multi-task. As long as different people get the attention treatment eventually, it's a little irritating but less of a big deal--it's when one person gets that attention all the time, and the others don't (or something like that) that the trainees get very unhappy...
they are obligated to avoid the appearance of overt favoritism
I agree, but even you in your post mention the possibility that favoritism as seen by one student is viewed as neglect by another student. How are we, as PIs, supposed to delve into the psychology of our students to understand what they see as favoritism? It is a very subjective thing.
One of the things in the Siblings book is the idea that you don't try to treat two children EXACTLY the same- you try to give them each what they need. Trying to make things match exactly will certainly fail.
I think it is the same thing with management/mentoring. There is a little chart I was given in one of the training classes showing the progression of an employee from someone who needs very detailed instructions to someone who can just be given a general idea of a project and turned loose. My job as a manager is to help each of my employees progress on that chart. They all come to me at different stages. Not giving lots of instruction to someone early in the progression is bad. So is giving too much instruction to someone who is farther along. They each need different things.
Figuring out what each employee needs is hard. Transitioning an employee from needing a lot of direct coaching to being more independent is also hard.
Cloud said the progression of an employee from someone who needs very detailed instructions to someone who can just be given a general idea of a project and turned loose. My job as a manager is to help each of my employees progress on that chart. They all come to me at different stages. Not giving lots of instruction to someone early in the progression is bad. So is giving too much instruction to someone who is farther along. They each need different things.
Figuring out what each employee needs is hard. Transitioning an employee from needing a lot of direct coaching to being more independent is also hard.
This all seems really obvious to me. And not that hard. But there is really one limiting reagent: time (and its corollary, patience).
I have had several students go through this progression and it is VERY rewarding to watch. But with some it does require a lot of patience and a long time waiting.
Maybe this just comes more naturally to me than to others, because I'm inclined to be interested in the psychology of learning and growth, it's kind of a hobby of mine. But I think this part should be doable by anyone so long as they keep track of the limiting reagent.
Seems to me the chances of bad mentoring go up proportional with the demands on your time. This can be if your lab is too big (the management books all say no one can effectively manage more than 8 people at a time).
But it can also be a risk if you have some kind of personal crisis that sucks up your time and patience, like a sick relative or a new baby who refuses to sleep.
I think the two big keys to management are being aware and communicating. If you're too busy to notice what's going on in your lab, that can lead to rivalries and tension. If you're not talking with your students and regularly asking how things are going, whether you can help, what do they need, etc. you can't rely on them to come and tell you if something is wrong until you build up that kind of trust. And that can take a while. Some students complain a lot; others refuse to admit anything is ever wrong even when the building is on fire. And I've seen everything in between. It's not rocket science, but you have to be committed and not just use some kind of cop-out like telling your trainees to "sack the fuck up". You can't expect them to be as tough as you are now. But you can guide them to the self-confidence and self-reliance that will help them get through these things when the training wheels come off.
my 2 cents
MsPhd- I agree that the progression thing is obvious. But I find it very hard to manage, at least in some cases. The extremes are easy- with someone who needs very little help or someone who needs detailed instructions it is pretty obvious what to do. But in the middle, it is very easy to offend the employee and end up in some special level of hell reserved for management problems that need HR involvement. Or have your employee screw up and have an important project go down in flames because you didn't provide enough guidance. I'm not sure which I think is worse in terms of amount of pain caused to the manager.
Interesting post. Management, like teaching, is one of those things that seem easy and obvious … until you try to do it.
No matter what you do, there will always be a certain amount of rivalry between trainees (and siblings) – that is normal and healthy.
What can make a big difference in these situations is giving your trainees enough feedback so that they don’t have to deduce how they’re doing based on how the PI is treating them. For example, getting a lot of attention from the PI is probably not a problem for most … unless they think it means that the PI doesn’t trust them. Not getting a lot of instruction from your PI can be fine, too … unless you think it means that the PI has no interest in you/your project.
Of course, “enough feedback” will vary from one trainee to another. But keeping the lines of communication open really is key.
I really wish PI would be be real bosses and managers and give up the whole "friend" aspect. I don't want to be friends with my boss, I don't my boss to know that I had a fight with my husband this morning and that is why I am distracted anymore then I want to go over to my bosses house and here about her crazy mother-in-law drama. What is so wrong about have a good decent professional relationship? I think if people stopped trying to be friends with their graduate students, the managing would get a lot easier.
My PI definitely treats students differently, and I've actually talked to him about it. He explained that different students have different backgrounds and strengths, and that he's trying to do what's best for each of us. I like that he kept things very professional, by saying that he's keeping close tabs on student X while they're doing Y because they don't have background in it, not saying that he doesn't trust student X or anything like that. I think most grad students would understand that sort of explanation. My advisor also doesn't talk about the shortcomings of other grad students, though he does sometimes mention things that have impressed him about his other students.
Hyp: non firstborn sibs are better at managing the different-but-equal system. firstborn sibs manage with the favoritism system.
discuss.
Interesting hypothesis, DrugMonkey. I'm the second child in my family, and have no problem with the different-but-equal approach. But the research from the child development arena seems to indicate that all children actually do better with this approach. I'm not sure how that translates into the work place, though.
I have also seen a hypothesis that under-represented minorities and women fare better when they run into systemic unfairness (such as layoffs occurring while senior management continues to draw bonuses) than the typical white man does. The theory is that this is because we are used to the system being unfair- i.e., we have plenty of personal experience with working hard and having an unfair outcome, whereas people who are used to being "privileged" expect that hard work will always be rewarded fairly. I'm not sure what I think of that hypothesis, either.
Yes, I think the PI occasionally giving some feedback about the reasoning behind decisions can be useful if it's done right. Of course, in some cases the problem may BE that the PI doesn't trust one trainee to do experiments as much as another, in which case how to explain that?
Druggie, that's a whole post in and of itself....but one would also have to account for the confounding "Cloud" factor: does the PI have zero, one, or multiple kids? And does it matter?
The back side of Cloud's second possible hypothesis is that because under represented minorities are used to taking all sorts of unfairness, they don't complain about it nearly as much or have as strong a sense of their own worth or rights.
Privileged people are much less likely to put up with infairness and hence do a lot of moaning when they don't get what they are used to. I see this in a couple of my nieces! Or is it a generation Y thng?
Of course, in some cases the problem may BE that the PI doesn't trust one trainee to do experiments as much as another, in which case how to explain that?
There must be some reason that the PI doesn’t trust that trainee, and that is what needs to be explained to that trainee (and that trainee alone). Did they screw it up once before? In that case, the PI can explain that they will work through this method together this time so that the trainee can learn the proper way of doing it. Does the trainee lack experience/background in the area? Then that should be the reason given. And so on. It probably won’t be easy for the trainee to hear this, but it leaves them in a better position than thinking: “my PI doesn’t trust me and I don’t know why”; or “my PI doesn’t trust me and there’s nothing I can do to change that.” In short, the PI should emphasize to lab members that everyone has different strengths and weaknesses, that people learn at different rates, but that none of this necessarily means that some people are better scientists than others. They are all still learning, and it’s important to give people a chance. That and definitely praise people when they earn it!
Ladies Bra – Seamless Comfort Fit
Experience unmatched comfort with Apna Showroom ladies’ bra. Designed for daily wear, this bra features seamless, stretchable fabric that fits like a second skin. Soft cups and adjustable straps offer full support without wires or irritation. Ideal for work, travel, and lApna Showroom Plastic Hair Clutcher clisp claw hair band for Women (Combo of 12 Pieces Multicolour, Medium)
Apna Showroom Tic Tac Hair Clips for women tik tak tic tak tic hair pin saree pin women's pin hairpin multicolor hair pin Girls Snap Hair Clips, Girls Daily Use Clips Multi Print Design Stylish clips Multicolour (100 Piece
Apna Showroom Women's Red Rose Flower Hair Clip/Brooch for men - women Vintage women hair flower rose hair accessories rose hair pin hair pins women stylish flower hair accessories women artificial flowers hair styling (Large 5 color rose) | hair pins for women stylish girls
ounging. Available in classic colors and sizes for all body types. Stay confident and comfortable all day long. The perfect innerwear for women who value comfort, style, and support.
Post a Comment